24fandomcom-20200223-history
Talk:24: The Official Magazine
Seperate pages? Do you think we would not have enough information to write a page for each issue? I might be able to do it; I have them all and could do a sort of "review" of them, with extra pictures and information? SignorSimon 20:45, 16 January 2008 (UTC) : If you feel there's enough information for each issue to have it's own page, by all means, do so. --Proudhug 22:03, 16 January 2008 (UTC) :: OK then, I'll get working on it soon. SignorSimon 22:46, 16 January 2008 (UTC) Well, I made the first issue, although I'm not completely satisfied it's a good idea. It's difficult to write without seeming chatty, and I couldn't think what to write in the info section at the top. Also, I couldn't get the brower to work. Anway, I'll wait and see what you think before doing any more. SignorSimon 21:20, 17 January 2008 (UTC) : The idea seems to be a valid one, but I'm not convinced either that giving every magazine issue an entry is a necessary step to take. You might want to put a few more details on the current list page for each issue, but personally I don't feel it will pay off to make individual articles. Keep in mind, however, that you still can go through with it if you'd like. – Blue Rook 06:42, 18 January 2008 (UTC)talk The problem I have with it is that to me it sounds much too colloquial, and as a Wiki 24 article I think it needs to sound more formal. Also, I would find it hard to know how much information to put on the main article if I was expanding that. SignorSimon 07:41, 18 January 2008 (UTC) :: As we approach a dozen issues, the main Magazine page begins to look overly long, citing the info in each issue. Having separate pages for each one is definitely a good idea. It seems best to have the main page with bullet lists of features, while individual issue pages summarize the interviews and articles. Some of the informal text can be easily removed. Besides, I wouldn't worry about it sounding too chatty, since you are summarizing a magazine. If you like, the intro at the top can be replaced with something simple like "Issue 1 of 24: The Magazine" or removed entirely. --Proudhug 13:00, 18 January 2008 (UTC) Well if you think it looks OK, then I'm happy to do the rest. I'll write it in the same style as the on here, if that's alright. SignorSimon 17:08, 18 January 2008 (UTC) : Right, I've made all the pages. I will start updating them with information and pictures ASAP. I avoided putting anything that would be considered a spoiler on Issue 12. SignorSimon 13:16, 27 January 2008 (UTC) Spoilers Personaly, I like the idea of there being spoilers on this site, you know me. But it breaks the policy, so I guess I'm just going to have to live with it. (makes a real angry expression) But this may not have season 7 spoilers, but it could give spoiler-free newbies ideas about season 7. For exapmle, Cherry Jones, SPOILERS! Carlos Bernard interview issue 12, SPOILERS! Eventualy, someone's going to say to themselfs; "That's odd, why is Carlos Bernard going to be talking about season 7 when his character's dead? Wait, Oh no, Dammit, I thought this site is going to be spoiler-free? I'm going to sue this site and make sure it gets deleted." How're you going to like that? And that's just one person, imagine a whole group of angry people, mad that this site went againts it's policy to be anti-seaseon 7 spolier. What I'm baciscally saying is that if you have a policy, follow it. And this my friend, does'nt follow the policy. Actors in the next season. Sure, it does'nt say that directly, but people will get the idea. Undersrand what I mean?--Black Kirby 22:52, 2 January 2008 (UTC) : Just because someone's interviewed, it doesn't mean they'll be appearing in the future; Jeff Ricketts was interviewed, too, but he's not scheduled to reappear. While I don't agree that there are necessarily any spoilers currently on the page, I put up a spoiler warning anyway, as per the Spoiler Policy. This is one of the very rare exceptions on the site where spoiler information may be permitted to creep into an article. The reason is because it's an OOU topic. Spoilers are never to appear in IU articles. Let me know if you have any questions, as I hope not to confuse anyone. --Proudhug 23:36, 2 January 2008 (UTC) :: Sorry! I probably should have thought to have put a spoiler warning on the page when I added these people! I'll make sure in the future to be more careful. SignorSimon 00:16, 3 January 2008 (UTC) Non encyclopedic? What's not encyclopedic about pointing out that the information is inaccurate? Is that a fact, or isn't it? --StBacchus 03:43, 31 August 2006 (UTC) : Of course that's important information that should be included somewhere in the article. What's "not very encyclopedic" is how it was presented. Firstly, it's probably not an important enough piece of information to include in the introductory paragraph. Secondly, when it is added to the article, it needs to be specificly cited, as the anonymous user pointed out. It's an entirely useless fact if we don't know what is inaccurate. Kinda like the always helpful "Trust no one!" --Proudhug 03:55, 31 August 2006 (UTC) Release dates There are some discrepancies over the magazine release dates between this page (and the corresponding issue pages) and the 2006 productions and 2007 productions pages. It seems all of the release dates here were added in one go by this Dec 07 edit, but the ones on the year pages were added beforehand one by one: * August 06 edit, adding June 13 (#2) and August 8 (#3) * Oct 06 edit, adding October 10 (#4) * Dec 06 edit, adding December 12 (#5) * August 07 edit, adding June 14 (#8) * Jan 08 edit, adding April 3 (#7) The early ones (2-5) seem to be off by 2 days. I'm inclined to go with the earlier edits, as they were made shortly after the stated release date rather than a year later. It's possible there was a North America/Europe delay so proudhug's date would be north american and signorsimon's european, in which case I think we should go with the north american one. For #8 I'd also be inclined to go with the earlier date, but unsure which to believe for #7 as SignorSimon's date was added before proudhug added his. Anyone know of any way to verify these dates? Or have any objection to me making the dates consistent with what proudhug added?--Acer4666 (talk) 13:20, December 26, 2016 (UTC)